The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, Volume 11(1), article number 1.
ENHANCING THE PROSPECT FOR DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY: THE
AMERICASPEAKS MODEL
Maria J. D’Agostino
Richard W. Schwester
Marc Holzer
Graduate Department of Public Administration
Rutgers University, Campus at Newark
ABSTRACT
Engaging citizens in the deliberative process is essential to overcoming participatory apathy,
cynicism toward government, and the apparent disconnect between citizens and decision-makers.
AmericaSpeaks developed an electronic town meeting (ETM) designed to reconnect citizens and
government. Ideally, the ETM affords citizens a means by which they can impact the policy-making
discourse. This paper examines the extent to which AmericaSpeaks’ ETM enhances the prospect for
deliberative democracy. Thirty minute structured interviews were conducted with twenty participants
from Citizen Summit III, an ETM held in the District of Columbia in November 2003. The interview
data suggest that AmericaSpeaks’ ETM, to some measure, enhances the prospect for deliberative
democracy insofar as it cultivates a broadly inclusive and autonomous dialogue.
Keywords: deliberative democracy, citizen participation, electronic town meeting (ETM),
AmericaSpeaks
1
The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, Volume 11(1), article number 1.
ENHANCING THE PROSPECT FOR DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY: THE
AMERICASPEAKS MODEL
INTRODUCTION
While citizen participation is fundamental to democratic governance, there is a clear
separation between elected representatives and the citizenry, one that is evidenced by declining voter
turnout, decreased levels of civic participation, and widespread cynicism toward political institutions
(Hudson 2001; Putnam 2000; Berman 1997; Avey 1989; Wolfinger and Rosenstone 1980; Verba and
Nie 1972). In contemporary democratic society, traditional structures of policy formation and
decision-making often minimize citizen participation. Traditional means of representation, such as
town hall meetings and public hearings, have proven to be ineffective.
Engaging citizens in the deliberative process is essential to overcoming participatory apathy,
cynicism toward government, and the apparent disconnect between citizens and decision-makers
(Weeks 2000). Technological optimists and deliberative democracy advocates are hopeful that
information and communications technologies (ICTs) will facilitate direct interactions between
citizens and government, thereby altering the dynamic of the policymaking process by giving citizens
a means of voicing their opinions and concerns regarding specific policies (O’Looney 2002;
Dahlberg 2001; Docter and Dutton 1998; Guthrie and Dutton 1992; O’Sullivan 1995).
AmericaSpeaks is a non-profit organization dedicated to enhancing citizen participation in the
public policy process through the application of ICTs. AmericaSpeaks developed the 21st Century
Town Meeting, an electronic town meeting (ETM) designed to reconnect citizens and government.
Ideally, this model affords rank and file citizens a means by which they can impact the policymaking
discourse.
The purpose of this research is to examine the AmericaSpeaks ETM in the context of
promoting deliberative democracy. Specifically, the following question is posed: does the
2
The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, Volume 11(1), article number 1.
AmericaSpeaks model enhance the prospect for deliberative democracy? Given that deliberative
democracy has been championed as a means of remedying what Weeks (2000) refers to as the “ills of
democracy,” it is necessary that we examine its feasibility beyond our traditional institutions of
government.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Citizen Participation
In an effort to address the apparent disconnect between government and citizens, scholars
advocate increased citizen participation in government (Box 1998; King, Feltey, and Susel 1998;
Schachter 1997; Thomas 1995). The reasons for this disconnect are numerous and complex.
Americans have typically held negative opinions of politicians, apathy has always been a part of
American politics, and citizens are not participating simply because they are satisfied (Harwood
1991). Yet, citizens have a clear idea of their responsibilities and want to be part of the political
process (King, Feltey, and Susel 1998; Harwood 1991). The Americans citizenry desire a place in
politics. They are willing to accept responsibility for fully engaging in the political process, but only
under the appropriate conditions. Currently, citizens feel politically impotent and this feeling is a
consequence of political disconnection.
Research suggests that increased citizen participation decreases the gap between citizens and
government (Berman 1997). Scholars believe that by increasing citizen involvement, citizens will be
better informed, and therefore they will be more capable of making decisions (Callahan 2002; Ebdon
2002). The decision-making process is afforded greater legitimacy when citizens are included
(Callahan 2002), as citizens see themselves as more than simply consumers of government
(Schachter 1997). However, according to Innes and Booher (2004), the available modes of
participation (e.g. public hearings, citizen panels, and citizen advisory committees) may contribute to
further aggravating the situation instead of remedying it. For example, Innes and Booher (2004)
3
The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, Volume 11(1), article number 1.
argue that public hearings present “distorted communicative action” given the absence of multi-way
dialogue and inequalities in the treatment of speakers.
However, citizen participation is perceived as time consuming, costly, and burdensome
(Mitchell 1997; Timney 1998; Box 1998; Thomas 1993). There is inherent conflict between the
values of citizen participation and the structure of government, which creates obstacles in allowing
for meaningful citizen participation (Callahan 2002). Although some believe in the virtue of popular
sovereignty, they remain skeptical of participation (Gruber 1987). For instance, it has been argued
that a more open process can engender poor decisions given that citizens are, by and large, out of
touch with political and economic realities (Innes and Booher 2004).
Deliberative Democracy
According to Weeks (2000), there are inherent problems with our civic discourse. That is, the
manner by which we discuss societal problems is flawed. Deliberative democracy is thought to reenergize the body politic and revitalize the public discourse, which may help to engender the political
will to address pressing societal problems. From the perspective of Bohman (1998, 400), “the
attraction for deliberative democracy for many was precisely its promise to go beyond the limits of
liberalism and to recapture the stronger democratic ideal that government should embody the ‘will of
the people’ formed through the public reasoning of citizens.” The notion of deliberative democracy is
synonymous with an Aristotelian model of politics, participatory democracy, communicative action,
as well as practical reason and critical reason (Dryzek 1990). The deliberative turn of democracy is a
renewed concern for authentic democracy, the embodiment of which is communication that causes
individuals to reflect upon their preferences within the context of arriving at a collective decision
(Dryzek 2000).
A cornerstone of the deliberative process is the nature of the communication involved.
Contrary to debate, participants strive to rise above a win-lose exchange (Adams et al. 2002; Roberts
2002; Yankelovich 1999). Deliberation is a process of “social learning about public problems and
4
The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, Volume 11(1), article number 1.
possibilities” (Reich 1990, 8). Participants in deliberative processes are expected to be open to
changes in their attitudes, ideas, and positions (although change is not a required outcome of
deliberation). It is a process of fostering citizen growth both in the context of practical judgment and
in the art of coexisting despite disagreement (Roberts 1997; Ryfe 2002; Walters et al. 2000; Waugh
2002; Weeks 2000; Zifcak 1999).
Deliberation has long been considered an important element of true democracy, and it is
central to public realm theory (London 1995). Scholars such as Arendt (1958) and Habermas (1989)
regard the public sphere as “both a process by which people can deliberate about their common
affairs, and as an arena, or space, in which this can happen naturally” (London 1995, 33-55).
Habermas (1989) provides a historical description of European social institutions throughout the 17th
and 18th centuries. He conveys the importance of social institutions as mechanisms by which private
individuals passed judgment on public acts. The English coffee houses, the literary societies of
Germany, and the salons of France are examples of such institutions, and they proved extremely
egalitarian in the sense that “the bourgeois met here with the socially prestigious but politically
uninfluential nobles as ‘common’ human beings” (Habermas 1989, 35). The institutions of
deliberation (e.g. coffee houses, literary societies, and salons) served to revive public opinion as a
mechanism for shaping policy or influencing government in a meaningful and reasonable manner.
The salons, literary societies, and coffee houses brought together generic intellectuals, creating
forums for opinions regarding the state of society. According to Habermas, the ideal public arena
fosters inclusive and voluntary citizen participation within the context of influencing how
government power is wielded.
According to Innes and Booher (2004), most of the citizen participation literature has focused
on discussing its problems, improving its techniques, or being more culturally sensitive, instead of
confronting the conventional outlets through which people participate. Innes and Booher propose
collaborative participation models as a new approach to participation. The key characteristics of this
5
The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, Volume 11(1), article number 1.
model are authentic dialogue, networks, and institutional capacity. Collaborative participation is a
multi-dimensional model; that is, it involves multiple stakeholders in a dialogue and a learning
process. After presenting and arguing the benefits of a collaborative participation model, Innes and
Booher acknowledge that a framework for significant participation depends on overcoming specific
obstacles, such as limited time, officials’ fear of losing authority, and lack of skills. However, there
are possible solutions to overcoming such obstacles, which include training, funding, or creating
forums and arenas where dialogues can take place (Bryson and Crosby 1993; Hajer 2004, as cited in
Innes and Booher 2004).
King, Feltey, and Susel (1998) conducted interviews and focus groups to explore how best to
cultivate an effective and satisfying participation process. Their findings demonstrate that while the
desire for participation is strong and that the participants recognize its importance, there are barriers
that cause citizens to feel isolated from the decision making process. In order to improve public
participation there must be movement away from the traditionally “static and reactive” process and
movement toward a more “dynamic and deliberative process.” In pursuit of this effort, they define
effective participation as “real or authentic.” Specifically, “authentic participation is deep and
continuous involvement in administrative processes with the potential for all involved to have an
effect on the situation” (King, Feltey, and Susel 1998, 320). Further, it is an “on-going, active
involvement, not a one-shot deal, not just pulling the lever…it needs to go out and reach out to every
part of your community however defined” (King, Feltey, and Susel 1998, 320).
In the effort to achieve authentic democracy, King, Feltey, and Susel (1998) suggest that the
public administrator become a cooperative participant, one who assists citizens in examining their
interests while working together to arrive at decisions by engaging them in open and authentic
dialogue. However, there are obstacles that must be overcome, including “the nature of life in
contemporary society” (i.e. time, transportation and family life), administrative processes (i.e. oneway communication) and current practices and techniques of participation (i.e. public hearings). In
6
The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, Volume 11(1), article number 1.
an effort to overcome these barriers to authentic participation, they suggest empowering and
educating citizens and re-educating citizens. In sum, their findings indicate that authentic
participation necessitates not only finding the right tools and techniques, but also rethinking the roles
and relationships between public administrators and citizens.
Weeks (2000) views deliberative democracy as a possible way of getting “out of the quagmire
of civic estrangement.” He describes a model of deliberative democracy that offers an opportunity
for all citizens to participate, defining deliberative democracy as the “informed participation by
citizens in the deliberative process of community decision making.” According to Weeks, public
participation must be: (1) broad, (2) informed, (3) deliberative, and (4) credible. Weeks concludes
that it is possible to convene a large-scale public deliberative process that enables local government
to take effective action on previously intractable issues. Success, however, depends on the standards
used. For example, regarding universal participation among completely informed citizens, the efforts
fall short. Recognizing that tools for deliberative democracy are still in their infancy, he suggests that
his model can be further strengthened by: (1) creating more effective strategies for recruiting citizen
participation, (2) developing ways to represent policy problems in a manner where options can be
evaluated, and (3) finding ways to shorten the interval between dialogues.
Enhancing Traditional Means of Representation: The AmericaSpeaks Model
Traditional means of representation seemingly marginalize citizen participation. Even though
town hall meetings and public hearings allow individuals to voice their opinions regarding specific
issues, these participatory mechanisms are flawed insofar as they preclude a meaningful exchange
among citizens and decision-makers (Uchimura 2002). According to Lukensmeyer and Brigham
(2002, 351), “public hearings and typical town hall meetings are not a meaningful way for citizens to
engage in governance and to have an impact on decision-making. They are speaker focused, with
experts simply delivering information or responding to questions.” Still, AmericaSpeaks developed
the 21st Century Town Meeting for the purpose of engaging citizens in a deliberative process.
7
The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, Volume 11(1), article number 1.
Carolyn Lukensmeyer, founder and president of AmericaSpeaks, maintains that citizens are locked
out of the policy-making process, which has been increasingly dominated by the political elite and
special interests. In simplest terms, the AmericaSpeaks 21st Century Town Meeting is a means by
which large numbers of citizens can be brought together through ICTs, and this model may serve to
overcome the shortcomings of traditional means of participation (Parasie 2003).
The AmericaSpeaks model is centered on seven elements: (1) content, (2) citizen voice, (3)
developing a strategy, (4) credibility, (5) creating a public space, (6) having an impact, and (7)
engaging the community. Content underscores the importance of diverse views and values. Citizen
voice coincides with altering the traditional role of citizens regarding the formulation of public policy
by educating decision-makers and creating structures and processes that foster human connections
and relationships. Developing a strategy refers to assessing the readiness of an issue, its political
context, and the communication context, in addition to establishing a neutral and honest broker role
and identifying partners. Credibility refers to an effort to make the process transparent in order to
demonstrate that all perspectives have been included and that the endorsement of community leaders
has been obtained. Creating a public space coincides with cultivating an environment where people
feel part of a group and that they can make a difference. Having an impact is synonymous with
influencing the decision making process. Finally, engaging the community recognizes that the rank
and file can offer sound judgments regarding public policy issues, as most individuals desire what is
best for government.
The 21st Century Town Meeting brings together thousands of people through the use of
networked computers, electronic keypads, and large video screens. Small group dialogues are a
central component of the meeting. Demographically diverse groups of ten to twelve people are
convened to discuss various issues. Each small group dialogue is guided by a trained facilitator,
which helps ensure that the dialogues are focused and that all participants are heard. Networked
computers are used to record and transmit each group’s viewpoints to a central computer. Experts
8
The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, Volume 11(1), article number 1.
code the viewpoints into themes, and each individual (within his or her respective group) uses an
electronic keypad (which resembles a television remote control) to vote on each of the themes
presented.
In November 2003, approximately 2,800 residents from the District of Columbia participated
in a 21st Century Town Meeting known as Citizen Summit III. A diverse group of participants were
asked to discuss three of the most important challenges facing the District: providing quality
education, making neighborhoods safer, and expanding opportunities for residents. Participants were
recruited through an organized outreach effort conducted by Neighborhood Action, which included
phone calls, flyers, direct mailings, coordinators attending civic meetings, and cable access television
advertising.
In collaboration with AmericaSpeaks, Mayor Williams initiated Neighborhood Action to
engage the public in governance through discussions of the city’s strategic plan and identification of
spending priorities. The mission of Neighborhood Action is “to ensure that District residents have a
voice in setting city and neighborhood priorities and providing high quality services to every
neighborhood” (refer to http://neighborhoodaction.dc.gov/), and with AmericaSpeaks it developed
the Citizen Summit process beginning in 1999, which is a two-year management cycle that offers
citizens the opportunity to set priorities for the District. The priorities as expressed by citizens
contribute to the formation of the Citywide Strategic Plan. After the city budget is adopted, the input
from the Citizen Summit meetings are used to set goals for city departments, and the department are
then held accountable for implementing those priorities through public scorecards (Citizen Summit
III: Real Challenges, Real Choices 2004).
9
The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, Volume 11(1), article number 1.
METHODOLOGY
Qualitative methods were used to determine the extent to which the AmericaSpeaks electronic
town meeting (ETM) enhances the prospects for deliberative democracy. Thirty-minute structured
interviews were conducted with twenty participants from Citizen Summit III, an ETM held in the
District of Columbia in November 2003. Interviewees were selected from a database maintained by
AmericaSpeaks. In the course of those interviews, Citizen Summit III participants talked about their
experiences, the nature of the discourse, in addition to the impact of the technology used. We then
conducted a content analysis of the transcribed interviews, isolating and interpreting recurring themes
that appear throughout key articles in the deliberative democracy literature, a summary of which is
provided in Table 1 below.
Deliberative Democracy Themes
Table 1
Theme
Characteristics
Broad Inclusion
(Dahlberg 2001; O’Looney
2002; Weeks 2000; Habermas
1984; 1989)
Environment is egalitarian.
Participants prevent one point of view from
silencing less favorable or minority
viewpoints.
Diversity of viewpoints
Reflexivity
(Dahlberg 2001; Dryzek 2000)
Participants critically evaluate their values,
assumptions, and interests in the context of
arriving at a collective decision.
Two-Way Exchange
(Dahlberg 2001; O’Looney
2002; Weeks 2000)
Participants engage in a two-way critique of
normative positions.
Differences among participants are recognized.
Autonomy
(Dahlberg 2001; O’Looney
2002)
Discourse is citizen driven.
Participants are free from manipulation or
coercion.
FINDINGS
10
The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, Volume 11(1), article number 1.
This paper examines whether the AmericaSpeaks model enhances the prospect for
deliberative democracy, which is defined within the context of broad inclusion, reflexivity, two-way
exchange, and autonomy (Table 1). The interview data suggest the following findings:
Broad Inclusion
1. The AmericaSpeaks Electronic Town Meeting (ETM) cultivated an egalitarian and inclusive
environment.
The vast majority of those interviewed indicated that Citizen Summit III was broadly
inclusive, which is to suggest that the Summit furthered a diverse marketplace of ideas. The Summit
environment was thought to be egalitarian, as a minority of participants and their respective views did
not dominate the small group discussions. Respondent 13 described the ETM as “inclusive in terms
of the views expressed,” while Respondent 18 thought that the small group discussions were “useful
in the sense of the diversity of the folks that were there…it was useful to hear the different voices.”
Citizen Summit III exposed its participants to a wide range of perspectives. It further underscored the
inherent value of bringing together an eclectic group of people, which was conveyed by a number of
respondents; in particular, Respondent 3 stated: “I think people, at least at our table, did really listen
to other people. We had a variety of ages and economic levels, and I think people really came away
learning a great deal about how other people live.” Respondent 19 stated: “It was good to hear
perspectives from other parts of the city and learn about their issues of concern…there were people
who had pet interests, special expertise in certain areas, whether it was mental health for seniors or
working with the youth…it was good to see a lot of the positives, the challenges, and different
issues.”
The broadly inclusive nature of AmericaSpeaks’ ETM was arguably a function of participants
taking responsibility for ensuring that the group dialogues were not dominated by a few individuals.
Specifically, Respondent 5 remarked: “within our table, there were a couple of people who
11
The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, Volume 11(1), article number 1.
dominated most the discussion…but they were pretty quickly reigned in [by other people at the
table].” Respondent 2 echoed similar sentiments, feeling as though “the table [participants] did a
good job of brining most folks into the discussion.” Finally, Respondent 20 credits ETM participants
with effectively “drawing out the people that weren’t speaking so much.”
2. The ETM, to some extent, may have over-emphasized consensus building at the expense of
minority viewpoints.
In spite of the broadly inclusive nature of the small group dialogues, some believed that the
ETM placed too much emphasis on consensus building, which consequently marginalized minority
viewpoints. More specifically, when asked whether the discussions were useful for examining
questions and ideas, Respondent 15 replied that the discussion “limited minority voices at the table
just because the way they held the discussion, they would present items, you would discuss them at
the table and then essentially come to an agreement, or a majority opinion at the table, and then
submit those ideas.” Similarly, while the technology proved beneficial in terms of arriving at a
consensus, some believed that minority points of view were seemingly lost. Respondent 14 indicated
that the technology “hides as much as it tells you,” which implies that the technology over-aggregates
individual opinions to the point where minority views are silenced. Respondent 20 expressed similar
concerns, contending that the technology reduced issues to the “lowest common denominator.”
Reflexivity
3. The ETM cultivated a semi-reflexive environment.
The majority of respondents indicated that the small group dialogues did not foster reflexivity.
That is, the interview data suggest that participants, by and large, did not critically evaluate their
values, assumptions, or positions regarding specific issues. However, nine of twenty respondents felt
as though Citizen Summit III caused them to reflect upon their respective beliefs. For example,
12
The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, Volume 11(1), article number 1.
Respondent 3 remarked, “there are some things that maybe wouldn’t have been high on my list [of
priorities]. But, listening to people at the table who live in different neighborhoods, I could agree with
them and say ‘yes’ these are certainly priorities.” Similarly, Respondent 15 recalled, “I know there
were a number of points that other people brought up regarding issues, such as reserving housing for
low income residents. It certainly did make me think about my points of view.” While some
participants did critically reflect upon their positions, the key element missing was reflection within
the context of collective decision-making. A lack of reflexivity is attributable to the fact that
traditional structures of participation (e.g. town hall meetings and public hearings) are not designed to
foster a reflexive environment. And as such, citizens are not accustomed to thinking in this manner.
This can be overcome, in part, by changing the culture of how we participate.
13
The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, Volume 11(1), article number 1.
Two-Way Exchange
4. The ETM was seemingly less successful in terms of cultivating two-way exchange.
Six of twenty respondents indicated that the ETM allowed one to engage in a dialogue of
normative positions, whereby the differences among participants were recognized. Specifically,
Respondent 18 noted that her expectations were met by being given “the opportunity to have a
dialogue with folks.” Moreover, Respondent 19 remarked, “[Citizen Summit III] was a good
overview of major issues…it was really nice to see the turnout and to meet people from all over the
City, and talk about our shared and different experiences,” while Respondent 5 felt that there was a
“good give and take about prioritizing [city] issues.” Respondent 14 remarked: “I think the value of
this process is that it provides in an organized, fairly sprightly way for 3,000 citizens, many of whom
do not participate on a regular basis in these discussions, to hear about what’s going on from those
who are leading the process for the City, and then to add discussions with other citizens that help
sharpen their views a bit by hearing people talk about the same topics.” Respondent 6 indicated that
the ETM allowed people to not only gain a sense as to the most pressing issues facing the city, but
also “what issues are most important to other people.”
A few respondents maintained that the Summit served as a means by which people could
voice their frustrations or vent. Venting, however, implies that some ETM participants may have
been more concerned about being heard or trumpeting their respective causes rather than being part
of a two-way exchange. Highlighting this point, Respondent 13 stated, “I would say that it [the ETM]
provides a venue for people to vent. It provides a venue that people can voice some of their issues
and concerns and feel like the Mayor and his administration are actually hearing what they are
saying. But, it terms of effectiveness, in terms of people walking away feeling empowered, I cannot
say that.” Further, Respondent 8 conveyed reservations regarding the lack of two-way exchange: “It’s
hard to get a group of activists in a room with all of those egos floating around, and that everyone
wants to assert their own view with the greatest amount of volume.” This perhaps best explains why
14
The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, Volume 11(1), article number 1.
the small group dialogues were, by and large, perceived as less than dialogical. Improving two-way
exchange could perhaps be accomplished through improved group moderation, in addition to
allocating more time for citizens to express their views by decreasing group size.
Autonomy
5. The ETM’s small group dialogues were citizen driven and without coercion or manipulation.
The interviews suggest that Citizen Summit III was autonomous. A relatively significant
number of those interviewed believed that average citizens, as opposed to government officials or
specialists, drove the discourse. Underscoring this point, Respondent 2 remarked that the Town
Meeting and its use of technology “did a pretty good job of creating a process whereby experts don’t
dominate.” Respondents 6, 10, 11, 14, 16, 18, 19, and 20 made a point of emphasizing that the small
group dialogues were citizen driven.
A small number of respondents, however, were seemingly skeptical of the Citizen Summit
process. In particular, some believed that the ETM was manipulative insofar as it served to pacify the
citizenry and reduce opposition to the Mayor and his vision. In other words, some would characterize
Citizen Summit III as a technologically sophisticated public relations tool. Respondent 7 stated, “my
own perspective on this Town Meeting is that it was organized to diffuse citizen opposition to the
things that the Mayor does or doesn’t want to do…they would like to get their message out and gain
support for it.” In spite of such criticism, District residents drove the ETM and there was little, if any,
indication of manipulation.
CONCLUSION
The purpose of this research was to examine the extent to which the AmericaSpeaks process
enhances the prospect for deliberative democracy. AmericaSpeaks’ ETM represents an alternate
means of policy deliberation, one that serves as a forum for debating public policy. The ETM
15
The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, Volume 11(1), article number 1.
increases the breadth of citizen engagement and enriches the depth of citizen participation, serving as
a direct mechanism for citizens to interact with government and possibly influence the public policy
process. The interview data support the premise that AmericaSpeaks’ ETM enhances the prospect for
deliberative democracy insofar as it cultivates a broadly inclusive and autonomous dialogue. The
ETM fostered an egalitarian and inclusive environment, whereby District residents could engage in a
discourse that was without manipulation or coercion from the power elite.
King, Feltey, and Susel (1998) maintain that education may help citizens to overcome the
obstacles to participation. As a civic exercise, the ETM is a very powerful tool in that it allows one to
better conceptualize the inherent complexity and difficulty of setting priorities and making public
policy decisions, which was conveyed by a number of respondents. For instance, Respondent 14
stated, “Helping [people] understand how complicated the decision making process actually is…for
me, that’s what this [the ETM] is about…more so than asking people to express a clear judgment
about a current policy dilemma.” Respondent 2 remarked, “Even though they may not agree with the
ultimate decision that the public official makes they may understand the nature of the trade off and
the other pressures and understand the context better and may be willing to cut the public officials
some slack.”
Some, however, expressed dissatisfaction given the lack of citizen input regarding the agenda
setting process. That is, the basis of the ETM’s discourse was pre-determined by experts and the
power elite, which precluded participants from raising issues that were not part of the Summit’s
scripted agenda. Citizens presumably played no role setting the agenda. Specifically, Respondent 3
declared: “You’re dealing with a subset of issues and ideas…it’s a predetermined set. It’s a set that
the government that the Mayor and his cabinet have picked. These are the major initiatives that [the
Mayor and his administration] are thinking about doing for next year, and that’s not necessarily what
I feel they should be doing…” Such criticism, however, does not ostensibly reflect upon the
deliberative nature of the ETM’s small group dialogues.
16
The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, Volume 11(1), article number 1.
The ETM serves as a means of reconnecting citizens and government, which may help to
reduce cynicism toward government and reaffirm the importance of citizen participation as a uniting
communal experience. The AmericaSpeaks model, given its emphasis on cultivating a pluralistic
discourse and re-establishing ties between government decision-makers and citizens, may serve as a
means of getting “out of the quagmire of civic estrangement” (Weeks 2000). Several participants
acknowledged the virtue of bringing people together citizens and government leaders. Underscoring
this point, Respondent 1 stated, “it [the ETM] made me feel more vested living in the District. It was
nice to go there and have it explained to me bit by bit exactly what was going on in the city and what
choices we have to make as citizens”
Cynicism toward government is largely a function of trust and social capital (Putnam 2000;
Berman 1997). The relationship between government and its citizens has been strained. First, some
citizens cynically feel as though government officials abuse their powers in the interest of selfaggrandizement; second, citizens often feel disconnected from government; third, government service
delivery is frequently portrayed as inadequate. Administrative strategies to reverse these perceptions
typically emphasize the benefits of government and improved service delivery. Some go further,
offering individuals a means of participating in a deliberative process, as opposed to traditional
structures and cultures of policymaking that minimize citizen input. We must ultimately work to
identify and implement mechanisms that allow citizens to participate in the public policy process, and
AmericaSpeaks’ ETM makes a broader contribution toward achieving such goals. While
AmericaSpeaks’ ETM is designed as an egalitarian policy-making tool, this research has merely
touched upon the deliberative nature of the process itself. Future research should examine the ETM’s
importance in terms of policy outcomes.
17
The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, Volume 11(1), article number 1.
REFERENCES
Adams, G.B., Baker, D. L., Johnson, T. G., Scott, J. K., Richardson, L. E. Jr., Wechsler,
B., & Zanetti, L. A. (2002). Deliberative governance: Lessons from theory and practice. Paper
Presented at the 63rd American Society for Public Administration National Conference,
Phoenix, Arizona, March 23-26.
Arendt, H. 1958. The human condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Avey, M. J. (1989). The demobilization of American voters. Westport: Greenwood
Press, Incorporated.
Berman, E. (1997). Dealing with cynical citizens. Public Administration Review,
57(2): 105-112.
Bohman, J. (1998). The coming of age of deliberative. Journal of Political Philosophy,
vol. 6, 399-423.
Box, R. C. (1998). Citizen governance: Leading American communities into the 21st
Century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bryson, J.M., Crosby, B.C. (1993). Policy planning and the design and use of forums,
arenas, and courts. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 20, 175-194.
Callahan, K. (2002). The utilization and effectiveness of citizen advisory committees in
the Budget Process of Local Governments. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting &
Financial Management, 14(2).
Citizen Summit III: Real Challenges Real Choices. 2004. Executive Summary & Data
Analysis Prepared by the Executive Office of Neighborhood Action.
Dahlberg, L. (2001). The Internet and democratic discourse: Exploring the prospects of
online deliberative forums extending the public sphere. Information Communication and
Society, 4(4), 615-633.
Docter, S. & Dutton, W. H. (1998). The first amendment online: Santa Monica’s public
electronic network. In R. Tsagarousianou, D. Tambini, & C. Bryan (Eds.), Cyberdemocracy:
Technology, cities, and civic networks (pp. 125-151). London: Routledge.
Dryzek, J. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, and
contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ebdon, C. (2002). Beyond the public hearing: Citizen participation in the local
government budget process. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial
Management, 14(2).
Gruber, J. (1987). Controlling bureaucracies: Dilemmas in democratic governance.
18
The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, Volume 11(1), article number 1.
Berkley, CA: University of California Press.
Guthrie, K. K., & Dutton, W. H. (1992). The politics of citizen access technology: the
development of public information utilities in four cities. Policy Studies Journal, 20(4), 574597.
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Vol. 1, Reason and the
rationalization of society. Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Harwood Group (1991). Citizen and politics: A view from main street America.
Kettering Foundation.
Hudson, W. E. (2001). American democracy in peril: Seven challenges to America’s
future. New York: Chatham House Publishers.
Innes, J.E., Booher, D.E. (2004). Reframing public participation strategies for the 21st
century. A paper presented at the 65th Annual Conference of the American Society for Public
Administration, Portland, OR, March 29, 2003.
King, C. S., Feltey, K., Susel, B. O. (1998). The question of participation: Toward
authentic public participation. Public Administration Review, vol. 58, 317-327.
London, S. (1995). Teledemocracy vs. deliberative democracy: a comparative look at two
models of public talk. Journal of International Computing and Technology, 3(2), 33-55.
Lukensmeyer, C. J. & Brigham, S. (2002). Taking democracy to scale: creating a town
hall meeting for the twenty-first century. National Civic Review, 91(4), 351-366.
Mitchell, J. (1997). Representation in government boards and commissions. Public Administration
Review, 57(2) 160-167.
Nye, J. S., (1999). Information technology and democratic Governance. In E. C. Kamarck
& J. S. Nye, (Eds.), Democracy.com? Governance in a networked world (pp. 1-18). Hollis:
Hollis Publishing.
O’Looney, J. A. (2002). Wiring governments: Challenges and possibilities for public
managers. Westport: Quorum Books.
O’Sullivan, P. B. (1995). Computer networks and political participation: Santa Monica’s
teledemocracy project. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 23(2), 93-107.
Parasie, N (2003). Democracy at the touch of a keypad. National Journal, (November).
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community.
New York: Simon and Schuster.
19
The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, Volume 11(1), article number 1.
Reich, R. B. (1990). Public management in a democratic society. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Report of Proceedings. (2002). Listening to the City. A project of the civic Alliance to
Rebuild Downtown New York. February 7. Available at
http://www.icisnyu.org/admin/files/ListeningtoCity.pdf. Accessed January 8,
2004.
Roberts, N. C. (2002). Keeping public officials accountable through dialogue:
Resolving the accountability paradox. Public Administration Review, 62(6), 658-669.
Ryfe, D. M. (2002). The practice of deliberative democracy: A study of 16 deliberative
organizations. Political Communication, 19(3), 359-377.
Schachter, H. L. (1997). Reinventing government or reinventing ourselves: The role of
citizen owners in making a better government. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Thomas, J. C. (1995). Public participation in public decisions: New skills and
strategies for public managers. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.
Timney, M.M. (1998). Overcoming administrative barriers to citizen participation: citizen as
partners, not adversaries. In King, C. S., Stivers, C., & Collaborators. Government is us:
Public administration in an anti-government era (pp.88-99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Uchimura, Y. (2002). The citizen summit: Integrating technology and democracy in the
nation’s capitol. The Public Manager, 21(2).
Verba, S., Nie, N. H. (1972). Participation in America. New York: Harper and Row
Publishers.
Walters, L. C., Aydelotte, J., Miller, J. (2000). Putting more public in policy analysis.
Public Administration Review, 60(4), 349-359.
Waugh, W. L., Jr. (2002). Valuing public participation in policy making. Public
Administration Review, 62(3), 379-382.
Weeks, E. C. (2000). The practice of deliberative democracy: Results from four
large-scale trials. Public Administration Review, 60(4), 360-372.
Wolfinger, R.E., Rosenstone, S. J. (1980). Who votes? New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Yankelovich, D. (1999). The magic of dialogue: Turning conflict into cooperation.
New York: Simon and Schuster.
Zifcak, S. (1999). From managerial reform to democratic reformation: Towards a
deliberative public administration.” International Public Management Journal, 2(2), 236-27.
20